Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2020-11-09 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff
On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 12:36:50PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:13:58PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > I don't know if this should be a blocker, but the MIPS builders are > > still extremely slow for kernel builds. In the worst case (mipsel: > > mipsel-aql-{01,02}) it

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2020-11-08 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:13:58PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > I don't know if this should be a blocker, but the MIPS builders are > still extremely slow for kernel builds. In the worst case (mipsel: > mipsel-aql-{01,02}) it takes about 41 hours, which is 3 times longer > than the next slowest

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2020-07-13 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff
Paul Gevers wrote: > As part of the interim architecture qualification for bullseye, we > request that DSA, the security team, Wanna build, and the toolchain > maintainers review and update their list of known concerns for bullseye > release architectures. There's nothing really of concern from

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2020-07-10 Thread Ben Hutchings
I don't know if this should be a blocker, but the MIPS builders are still extremely slow for kernel builds. In the worst case (mipsel: mipsel-aql-{01,02}) it takes about 41 hours, which is 3 times longer than the next slowest group of builders (armhf: hasse, henze, holby). This can be a problem

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2020-07-09 Thread Matthias Klose
On 7/8/20 9:21 PM, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi, > > [Note, this e-mail may look familiar as it is mostly copied over from > the buster call, not much has changed, AFAICT]. > > As part of the interim architecture qualification for bullseye, we > request that DSA, the security team, Wanna build, and

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2020-07-09 Thread Florian Weimer
* Paul Gevers: > * Concern for armel and armhf: only secondary upstream support in GCC >(Raised by the GCC maintainer; carried over from stretch and buster) glibc upstream lately has trouble finding qualified persons to implement security fixes for the 32-bit Arm architecture. > * Concern

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2018-06-30 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:33:16PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 22:31 +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > Niels Thykier wrote: > > > If the issues and concerns from you or your team are not up to date, > > > then please follow up to this email (keeping debian-release@l.d.o

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2018-06-29 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 22:33 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 22:31 +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > Niels Thykier wrote: > > > If the issues and concerns from you or your team are not up to date, > > > then please follow up to this email (keeping debian-release@l.d.o and > >

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2018-06-29 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 22:31 +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Niels Thykier wrote: > > If the issues and concerns from you or your team are not up to date, > > then please follow up to this email (keeping debian-release@l.d.o and > > debian-ports@l.d.o in CC to ensure both parties are notified). >

Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns

2018-06-29 Thread Moritz Mühlenhoff
Niels Thykier wrote: > If the issues and concerns from you or your team are not up to date, > then please follow up to this email (keeping debian-release@l.d.o and > debian-ports@l.d.o in CC to ensure both parties are notified). Two issues that we discussed at the recent Security Team sprint wrt